Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HONBLE MS.JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH, JJ.
Smt. Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla .....Appellant
Versus
Shri Manjeet Singh Chawla .....Respondents
RFA No. 575/2005
Decided on : 20.09.2007
Through : In person
Through Mr. Rajit Singh
Headnote:
Bigamy - Maintenance Claim - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Section 18, Section 20 - [The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the context of a maintenance claim by a woman who entered into a second marriage unknowingly. The court highlights the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the right of a second wife to claim maintenance and residence despite the void nature of the marriage.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was married to the respondent, who had concealed his prior marriage. After living together for 14 years and having two children, the appellant was deserted by the respondent upon discovering his prior marriage. She filed a petition for maintenance and right of residence under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant, not being a legally wedded wife, could not claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act. The court found that the respondent's concealment of his prior marriage and subsequent cohabitation with the appellant warranted consideration of her claim for maintenance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as a second wife in a void marriage, could claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, despite the void nature of her marriage, was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent destitution and the distinction between a second wife and a concubine. The court also relied on the purposive interpretation of the law to ensure fair provision for the financially dependent spouse.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court to decide the appellant's claim on merits. The interim maintenance, as enhanced by the Supreme Court, was revived, and the appellant was awarded arrears of interim maintenance for the intervening period. The appellant was also entitled to costs in the appeal.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
1.The appellant herein is duped by the respondent. The respondent, who was already married to one Amarjeet Kaur suppressing this marriage and pretending that he was still a bachelor, married the appellant on 11.12.1977, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Jalandhar. Both of them lived as husband and wife for number of years at the matrimonial house, i.e. A-447, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Two daughters were born out of this wedlock, on 18.2.1981 and 31.5.83 respectively. According to the appellant, she decided to complete her B.A. Degree, which she had left incomplete earlier before marriage. Therefore, she picked up her studies again. In April 1991, she went to Paghwara, Punjab, to take the exams. On 13.6.1991 when she returned, her mother-in-law did not allow her to go inside the house. She was, thus, deserted by the respondent. At that time she came to know that the respondent was already married to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur.
2.The appellant did not swallow this insult to her. She filed a criminal case against the respondent for committing bigamy (in this case the respondent has been convicted). She also filed a petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (in short the Act) claiming recovery of maintenance and right of residence from the respondent. She claimed decree of maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month plus rent of residence and also prayed for necessary charge on the matrimonial house A-447, Defence Colony for securing the right of maintenance.
The petition was filed as an indigent person under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC, which was allowed.
3.This petition was originally filed in this Court. On 28.8.1997, order was passed directing the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Vide order dated 2.3.2000, the Court ordered for payment of a further sum of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant by way of interim maintenance. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.4.2000 further maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was allowed. Application for interim maintenance was ultimately decided by the Court vide order dated 11.1.2002 granting interim maintenance of Rs.400/- per month. The quantum was challenged by the appellant by filing appeal before the Division Bench, which enhanced the maintenance to Rs.700/- from 1.8.2003 vide orders dated 25.7.2002. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, this interim maintenance was enhanced to Rs.1,500/-per month with effect from May 2004 till the disposal of the suit, vide order dated 21.4.2004.
4.On enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, the petition was transferred to the District Court on 27.11.2003. The respondent did not file the written statement and ultimately vide order dated 11.10.2004 the right of the respondent to file the written statement was struck off. The appellant appeared in the witness-box and submitted her affidavit by way of evidence (Ex. PW 1/1). She also proved various other documents showing financial status of the respondent as well as the appellants mother-in-law. The respondent did not lead any evidence.
5.The learned trial court, however, has dismissed the petition of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 13.7.2005. This petition is not dismissed on merits but on the ground that such a petition filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act claiming maintenance from the respondent is not maintainable as the appellant is not a legally wedded “wife” of the respondent. This finding is arrived at by the learned trial court on the premise that since the respondent was already married to one Amarjeet Kaur, his second marriage with the appellant was clearly void and of no legal effect. It is held that under Section 18 of the Act, petition can be filed by a legally wedded wife and not by a person who is not lawfully married and for this conclusion the learned trial court has drawn the support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs
